Obeid v Urban Renewal Authority Victoria

The dispute in *Obeid v Urban Renewal Authority Victoria* concerned a claim for compensation by Mr Obeid against the Urban Renewal Authority Victoria (URAV) for loss of business profits. Mr Obeid alleged that URAV’s actions in acquiring his property and undertaking redevelopment works had caused him to suffer a loss of profits from his business, which had operated on the acquired land. The case was heard by Hayne and Kiefel JJ in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether Mr Obeid was entitled to compensation for loss of business profits under the relevant provisions of the *Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986* (Vic). Specifically, the court had to determine whether the Act permitted compensation for such a loss, and if so, under what circumstances and subject to what limitations.

The High Court held that the *Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986* (Vic) did not provide for compensation for loss of business profits. Their Honours reasoned that the Act's provisions regarding compensation for acquisition of land were confined to the value of the land itself and any direct loss or damage arising from the acquisition, such as disturbance. Loss of profits was considered a consequential economic loss that fell outside the scope of the compensation scheme established by the Act. The court affirmed that compensation for compulsory acquisition is a statutory matter, and the entitlement to compensation is strictly limited by the terms of the governing legislation.